You can see the revenue leaking.
You can't prove where.
So you can't fund the fix. I find the exact place your acquisition system loses revenue it should be keeping, score it, and attach a number you can take into the room where budget gets decided.
Twenty years in UX research and systems design, including institutional fintech. You work with me directly. Not an account team.
You have the traffic. You have the product.
What you don't have is the system between them.
You can see the before and after in your own metrics. You can't draw a clean line from interest to revenue. So every time budget or headcount comes up, conviction loses to whoever brought a number.
This is structural, not a people problem. No one owns the handoff between what marketing, design, and tech produces and where revenue gets earned. The conversion layer between interest and the conversation that closes it was never formally built.
Not activity. A scored, finite, board-ready read of where your acquisition system breaks and what closing the gap is worth. You take it into the room and have a real conversation about money, not advocacy.
You can see the revenue leaking.
Here's what that actually looks like.
Two audits. Two distinct buyer problems. One diagnostic practice built to name what's breaking and attach a number to it. In 60 days, fixed fee, principal-delivered.
Twenty years inside enterprise design.
Now outside it.
I spent 20 years in design and tech. I've worked solving design problems across enterprise organizations including T-Mobile, Expedia, Microsoft, Wilmington Trust, the Home Depot, and Allrecipes. I've watched the same design and customer acquisition gaps show up regardless of business vertical. I've been a part of Design teams doing real work with little architecture connecting it to business outcomes. The work included multiple awards for innovation and a U.S. Utility Patent while working at T-Mobile.
This is a major gap across verticals. It isn't a design quality problem. It's a structural one. The system connecting design decisions to revenue, client acquisition, and business growth was never built. I lived that from the inside long enough to understand exactly why it persists and why it's nearly impossible to fix from within.
Now that I'm outside of it, I'm positioned to diagnose it without the political constraints that make internal advocacy so costly, and to advocate for design earning the structural role it needs to drive the outcomes it's being asked to deliver.
You work with the person
who does the diagnosis.
You've hired vendors who delivered activity instead of results. Reporting without attribution. A senior person who sold the work and a junior team who delivered it. Two quarters of motion, then quietly retired.
A diagnosis doesn't work that way. It comes from one senior practitioner who has looked at the system, not a committee of associates billing hours. That's the structure here. The audit is principal-delivered by design, because a finite, senior read is exactly what it should be.
The work is scoped and time-boxed. You aren't betting on capacity. You're buying a senior read of where your system breaks and what it's worth to fix. As the practice grows, implementation scales through a vetted team. The diagnosis stays mine.
- A redacted sample finding from a prior audit
- The scoring rubric behind every diagnosis
- The board-ready format your team will receive
Two principles that shape every engagement.
AI is a force multiplier. Not a replacement.
The risk in business is not AI itself. It's organizations that use AI to cut the humans who hold the relational and ethical weight of care. I believe AI should make the people in the room significantly better at their work. The human drives the strategy and makes the judgement call because they bear the responsibility for the outcomes AI produces.
Read more on my approach →Loyalty is the operating principle.
Loyalty means I tell you what's true even when it costs me the engagement or future work. The scope I agree to is the scope I protect. The findings I deliver are what the data shows, not what would make you more likely to hire me next.
Read more on my approach →If you can see the leak and can't prove it,
that's the entire reason this exists.
A 30-minute conversation to determine fit. No pitch. No deck. Just the right conversation about where your acquisition system is losing revenue, and whether a diagnosis is the next step.